GnnS wrote:I have two problems with evolution1)I dont believe in any type of Abiogenesis since the evidence that support this theory are insufficient(in fact no type of Abiogenesis has ever been observed).So how this "last common ancestor" emerged is a mystery...2)Organisms are too well "designed" to be the result of passive evolution.I even think some times that irreducible complexity has some points despite the fact that science reject the term

I will just adress your first point, because you are onto something we both agree, in spite of drawing diametrically opposed conclusion from it You require evidence to be convinced of abiogenesis. Great. And yes in spite of the multiple theory offered, there are none that have been generally accepted and demonstrated. However, this is not strictly evolution, as the latter deals with what happens when living organism already exist. But the main point is, beside evolutionary theory, what theory explains how life as we know it, and fossils, and the the living world as we see it came to be? And what evidence are supporting said theory that would be more convincing than what we have now going for the current theory of evolution? I am very curious.And old book(s) written by old men without base in facts are not acceptable...

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

That is my problem with religion as an explanation - that all the 'proof' anyone has ever given me are books written by men who could easily have made it up or corrupted it for their own purposes.

The problem with studying evolution is that you only every really see the evolutionary steps that worked rather than those that went wrong. The ones that didn't work either:1. left so few fossils the probability of finding one is less than winning the lottery2. many of the evolutions would have caused miscarriages - not developing far enough for a skeleton to be observed or the evolution not observable after the tissues have disintegrated.

The only 'proof' evolution can give are the characteristics used to organise animals in taxonomy, which slowly get more advanced and more intricate. To me this is enough to make me believe in evolution.

Well there is much more proof than that when you look into the genome. The traces of ancient genes, sequence similarity and of course the commonality of most of the basic molecular biology from bacteria to whales are good tell tales of the common origin of life.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

What if DNA means a common creator?My main problem is that i find it very difficult for this process to have started through Abiogenesis.Because even if i accept a type of Abiogenesis then this piece of life must find a way to survive on a hostile environment.Then it must find a way to replicate asexually and later sexually.All these steps are quite tough.To try to explain how sexual reproduction started is a bit nightmarish.My other problem is that some organisms show evolution but some others remain static(and this is why punctuated equilibrum theory was made).What if a creator exists who started by building small structures(microorganisms)and then continued with more and more sophisticated structures?What if this creator made plants to have his structures something to eat and made them reproduce in order to have his model survive?

Here is one of the top ten best solid arguments against Evolution, that I know, Evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." That means that things break down into less complex forms, in time. Evolution says that less complex forms evolved into more complex forms, which breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Another thing I would like to specify, is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics was a theory, until scientists proved that it was true, and it then became a Law. People have had trouble with the whole theory and law business before, so I am specifying this time.

"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould

The theory of evolution does not break the second law of thermodynamics. The system is the universe, local reduction is possible if the entropy of the system as whole is the same or increased. Otherwise your fridge would not work. Again, please educate yourself.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

The system is the universe, local reduction is possible if the entropy of the system as whole is the same or increased. Otherwise your fridge would not work. Again, please educate yourself.

What exactly do you mean by that?If evolution states that life forms slowly evolved from less complex forms to more complex forms, then it clearly is in conflict with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If over time things break down into simpler forms, not more complex forms, then how can the Evolution model be correct?Please try and speak in simple terms, after all I am a teenager, and not a professor.Also I would please ask that you discontinue using degrading and insulting language, you sound much more professional if you don't.

"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould

The system is the universe, local reduction is possible if the entropy of the system as whole is the same or increased. Otherwise your fridge would not work. Again, please educate yourself.

What exactly do you mean by that?If evolution states that life forms slowly evolved from less complex forms to more complex forms, then it clearly is in conflict with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If over time things break down into simpler forms, not more complex forms, then how can the Evolution model be correct?Please try and speak in simple terms, after all I am a teenager, and not a professor.Also I would please ask that you discontinue using degrading and insulting language, you sound much more professional if you don't.

You need me to explain basic thermodynamics in simple layman terms because you are a teenager, not a professor? And yet you can claim with certitude that evolution is breaking the second law of thermodynamics? If I had any taste to be sarcastic and snarky, I would get a good laugh pointing how surprising that is that someone can make bold affirmations on a subject that he claims cannot understand... But that would be so different from me. In fact, if you were one of the poor unfortunate souls (only in metaphoric sense) that had the opportunity to be one of my student I would chew your head off and make sure that you would not come back into class before you know what you are talking about before trying to make a case for yourself. Ignorance is fine, if it leads to questions and thinking. But it turns to stupidity if it just bring acceptance with blind faith of whatever you are told to believe by some ignorant morons with an agenda to push. And then you end up deserving the scorn rather than just your ideas.

But since I am patient, too tired to breathe fire, and of unusually less malevolent mood I wiil try to explain to you what the second law of thermodynamics mean, and how it relates to fridges and evolution.

I will start by pointing you to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law ... modynamicsThis is a good start, much better (complete and accurate) than what I could do, I am no physicist. And I will just append a short note to explain the freezer:Look at the Clausius statement in the Wiki entry (my bold).

No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.

And yet this is exactly what your fridge/freezer is doing... inside. Transfering the heat of the air in the fridge to the pump in order to cool it down. How does it do that? simply because in the meantime a pump is working hard to compress the fluid and releasing large amount heat in the atmosphere actually larger than the amount of heat removed from the inside of the fridge. So if you were running a fridge in an isolated box on an autonmous battery using the heat from the pump to recharge itself (an approximation of a closed system) the only result would be an increase of the average temperature of the system, otherwise known as an increase of entropy. Because the mechanisms for cooling and for energy production are and cannot be 100% efficient, they produce waste heat that get lost. So you cannot thus create an infinitely cooling mechanism that would keep entropy at bay (the cold fridge). But it might work for some time depending on the amount of energy in the battery and the efficiency of each convesrion rate.

Same thing for life and chemistry, order of the higher quality such as long complex chemical reactions can be maintained for a long time, but you will need to provide some energy, and when it will be exhausted, the reactions will stop. Life is exactly that, a complex set of chemical reactions that cannot survive without the input of energy that comes from the sun (mostly) and the radoiactive decay of the inside of our planet (deep vent life). So there is plenty of energy around to keep arranging the building block of life, repairing decay and maintaining life. As long as the sun shine.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

canalon wrote:Well there is much more proof than that when you look into the genome. The traces of ancient genes, sequence similarity and of course the commonality of most of the basic molecular biology from bacteria to whales are good tell tales of the common origin of life.

ahh but this can be viewed in differnt ways, common descent or designer, then again if we have a common designer i suppose that is common sense also! We are clearly all related through DNA, its the mechanisms that bother me...its simple we just dont know for sure yet.

What facet of evolution do you mean? as you know one can define evolution in many ways. I personally dont know how people dont accept that change happens over time. My gripe is the ease with which people, biologists or not accept the mechanisms by which adaptions and designs in nature took place. From my research I am in no way convinced that the proposed mechanisms could have brought about the design in the natural world, from the molecular level up to the eco system itself.

I have come to the conclusion(subject to change) that evolution(its mechanisms applied to observed adaptions etc) requires just as much faith as a particular deity..

canalon wrote:Well there is much more proof than that when you look into the genome. The traces of ancient genes, sequence similarity and of course the commonality of most of the basic molecular biology from bacteria to whales are good tell tales of the common origin of life.

ahh but this can be viewed in differnt ways, common descent or designer, then again if we have a common designer i suppose that is common sense also! We are clearly all related through DNA, its the mechanisms that bother me...its simple we just dont know for sure yet.

And why would s/he use crap DNA? Why would our DNA contain more than 50% of (for us) useless retrotransposones, if created?

canalon wrote:Well there is much more proof than that when you look into the genome. The traces of ancient genes, sequence similarity and of course the commonality of most of the basic molecular biology from bacteria to whales are good tell tales of the common origin of life.

ahh but this can be viewed in differnt ways, common descent or designer, then again if we have a common designer i suppose that is common sense also! We are clearly all related through DNA, its the mechanisms that bother me...its simple we just dont know for sure yet.

And why would s/he use crap DNA? Why would our DNA contain more than 50% of (for us) useless retrotransposones, if created?

I am both shocked and taken aback at this comment for a few reasons, wow..

first i would never presume to know or suggest the identity of a designer(if there was one), or why he/she/ did something.Second you are presuming that becuase we dont know what its function could be that it has none? you see, nature, whether designed or not, does not waste anything, it is so efficient at recycling itself and sucking everylast bit of use from energy that the whole discipline of biomimickry has now taken root wherby engineers use natures designs as inspriation(about time) so from looking at nature we can more safely assume that there is a use for these rather then there is apparetly useless...

3rd, if you have studied DNA or biology even a small amount, and come out with the opinion that DNA is "crap"? Well that is simply too hard for me too get around. This molecule, as well as those enzymes and protines it produces and maintaines is, simply put, miraculous, whether or not it was designed. For me, reading biology is somewhat of a religious experience, its that amazing, in fact if we are going to worship anything I feel it would be more prudent to look to our inner world as opposed to a deity, becuase this stunnig co ordination of systems and molecules, instructions and commands, constructors and deconstructors etc is the life giving force that we can observe, rather then have faith in..

I simply fail to account for the fact that anyone could come to this conclusion about dna, it makes me slighly afraid for where we are headed as a race...I